Constitutional Court (MK) held judicial hearing Act No. 8 of 2011 on the Second Amendment Act No. 24/2003 regarding Constitutional Court towards  1945 Constitution on Thursday (4/12), with the agenda of the revised hearing.

The case, registered upon 131/PUU-XII/2014 was filed by Alumnus of the Faculty of Law, University of Muhammadiyah Jakarta, Riyanti, questioning Constitutional Justice term limits as stipulated in Article 22 of the Constitutional Court Act, which says "The term of office of Constitutional Justice is 5 (five ) years and may be re-elected only for 1 (one) subsequent term of office. "

In the brief court hearing, Petitioner, represented by legal counsel Vivi Ayunita Kusumandari conveyed to the Panel of Justices, led by Anwar Usman with members Aswanto and Wahiduddin Adams that it has improved the application. "Application has already been revises as advised beforehand, Majesty," said Vivi.

Previously, the Petitioner argues that his constitutional rights have been harmed by such provision as it concerned with the potential for delays in the recruitment process by the House of Representatives (DPR). Applicant reflects on the emergence of a dispute that occurred in Parliament recently between Red-and-White Coalition and Awesome Indonesia Camps. The applicant argued that the feud could impact on the selection of the Constitutional Justices should it derived from the outgoing Parliament’s options.

In addition, the applicant argued that these provisions give rise to different treatment between the Constitutional Court to Supreme Justice, even though the two institutions of judicial power were set at the same setting, namely Article 24 paragraph (2) 1945 Constitution. The applicant also argued by Court Decision No. 34/PUU-X/2012, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court are equal institutions, so the Applicant assessing  it is unusual should the tenure of judges in both institutions are distinct or distinguishable.

Moreover, the applicant also argued that the existing norms on Article 22 of the Constitutional Court Act is not akinwith Article 23 paragraph (1) Constitutional Law which stipulates that the constitutional Justices honorably discharged when aged 70 (seventy) years, so it does not provide legal certainty and contrary to Article 28D (1) 1945. In its claim the applicant asks the Court to give constitutional interpretation, that Article 22 of Law on the Constitutional Court against the constitution if it is not interpreted as "a term of Judge of the Constitutional Court since the oath swearing to retire that old 70 years ". (Ilham/kun)